1. Chairs’ reports (L. Mullen, T. Izbicki)

Laura announced a change to the order of the agenda. We will discuss open access journals first.

CSC discussions this year will inform the Planning and Coordinating Committee’s agenda on the reorganization of scholarly
communication. This is an effort to establish a new focus, to reduce balkanization, and to move technical issues into the context of
public services based on last year’s PlanCo report on research services.

We need to address the issue of open access journals and other aspects of scholarly publishing and the e-textbook pilot program.

A decision was made to reinstate the citation management tools page into the suite of research services on the new CSC website.

There will be a poll on availability for a combined November/December meeting.

Tom reported about his visit to the Nature Publishing Group and raised the issue of medical scholarly communication. We need to
consider how to integrate medical resources into the general resources and services, perhaps through LRC.

2. RUL Open Access Journals (R. Jantz, guest)

The last Cabinet discussion on April 16, 2013 was inconclusive. Not much has been done since then, although there are some new
proposals for open access journals. Ron noted that we have a good technology base and have been informally publishing journals since
2004. Ron presented a handout on the open access journal program.

Ron provided an update on download statistics. In this period there have been over a half million downloads across 5 journals. The
JRUL issues had an impressive number of hits when it entered the platform and the Journal of Jazz Studies did as well.

He introduced the issue of membership in CrossRef which is important if RUL is to begin assigning DOIs to articles:

Annual membership is $275. In addition, CrossRef charges $1 per DOI. We could get started for approximately $200 and for the near
future may need only about $500. Back issues cost $.15 per DOI.

CrossRef needs a URL for RUL publications- we don't have this yet.

We would need to provide to CrossRef information on the databases in which journals are indexed. Liaisons could prepare this
information for subject journals.

CrossRef asks where journals are archived. We will need to come up with a means of archiving the journals. There is a possibility of
dark archiving issues in RUcore, but we would have to consider that an RUcore copy has a different DOI. In this case there would be a
primary and a secondary DOI. Multiple DOIs are not desirable. There should not be an overlap between OJS and RUcore. But we might
justify a different version for a dark archive copy, or perhaps we could assume that the OJS is itself an archival system. We need
clarification.

There is a question on outlinking from references in articles. CrossRef would expect us to make DOI links to references that have
DOIs.

Ron would like initially to begin assigning DOIs to PCSP articles going forward assuming that CrossRef accepts the terms of our
agreement.

As for continued development, the general sense of CSC is that we should go forward. Ron will check with the University of Pittsburgh
to see what their practice is. We should consider archiving the journal articles in RUcore and develop a web page for the journal
services, to be included as a seventh box in the CSC website.

The committee reviewed the April 16, 2013 Cabinet proposal and offered possible arguments to support a reconsideration by Cabinet to
support the existing open journals program as well as to be able to also consider adding a very limited number of new journals:

The move to expand the open access journal program should be seen in the context of the open access policy

RUL has joined the Library Publishing Coalition

Laura will raise the issue in PlanCo.

3. Scholarly Communication organization at RUL: input from CSC to PlanCo: the role of CSC past and future (All)

Laura introduced a discussion of what role CSC should play in the future, in the context of the PlanCo agenda of reorganizing
scholarly communication services, and who should serve as members. Laura described the history of the committee and how it has evolved.
Ideas included:

CSC has moved from a discussion group to a committee involved in services.

CSC has had a normal development from an advocacy group to a committee that needs to get real work done. RUL needs to function like
other libraries and coordinate functional assignments for scholarly communication projects. Projects should be directed by
implementation teams that get service areas implemented by addressing all aspects from beginning to end- cyberinfrastructure, legal
issues, process, and training- according to specified schedules. CSC might coordinate implementation teams for the various projects
identified within research services.

An opinion was offered that appointed subject representatives may not play a clear role, and that appointment by functional work
would be more useful to get work done. Elected representatives from the broad academic disciplines were established to ensure that the
diverse intellectual cultures and scholarly communication practices were represented on the committee. For some elected
representatives, service on CSC was an important educational opportunity. However, because the CSC has evolved to emphasize active
planning and advocacy on scholarly communication issues, the expectations for committee members have also evolved. Appointments to the
committee have increased markedly to ensure that members can benefit from immediate input by key individuals involved with scholarly
communication services. This has shifted the membership balance so that there are as many appointees as elected members. It was
suggested that instead of subject representatives, elected members might be more “at large.”

We should propose new membership criteria for next year. If CSC removed subject representatives, who would serve instead? Should CSC
be a standing committee defined in the bylaws? Should members be elected or appointed and who should they be? How should the chair be
appointed? Laura will propose a new committee through PlanCo. For the next meeting we should plan on making a list of possible
membership functions.

There was a discussion on the importance of setting priorities in undertaking projects. It was mentioned that we need a methodical
way to discuss and make decisions on which projects to take on and in what order. The digitization framework is not complete, and in
addition we have open data, the open access policy, and many other projects. We might have e-textbooks, MOOCs, etc. A more proactive
prioritization process needs to be developed.

There was a question on how we might connect with the research faculty to get input about prioritization and also about the role of
the RUL Advisory Council.

4. CSC Research Services website; updates and changes (M. Wang)

Minglu reported that the CSC website has been revised to indicate that data services are under development.

The citation management tool has been attracting interest. Members agreed to reinstate the Citation Management Tools section of the
CSC website. Tom Glynn will then bring the issue to USC.

In the new copyright page, the old links in the Faculty information page need to be replaced.

A reference link in the menu to Citation Management Tools should replace the link to Refworks.

5. RUL copyright update (J. Pilch)

There will be a poster session on the digitization evaluation process at the State of the Libraries event on November 5.

Janice raised the issue that there is a need to further define the evaluation process. It was developed as a one-size-fits-all
process for major and routine projects. But we are receiving requests to put other types of material into RUcore through this system.
The process was designed to be about digitization projects, i.e. projects involving digitization of a large quantity of materials from
analog to digital for deposit in RUcore), although this is not universally understood, and transcoding projects have been submitted
through the forms.

RUcore has three deposit streams: scholarly article deposit, ETDs (both of which are automated deposit flows for RU affiliates with a
NET ID), and now digitized RUL collections. RUcore has not developed a process for deposit of other types of material. This gap needs
to be filled. We need to work on new deposit flows for material that is not about a digitization project- it doesn’t involve
digitization and it’s not a project. Examples would be a born digital file, or a single analog item, like a book, that could be
digitized and made available. People should have to fill out either a routine or major form for this type of deposit. We need a simpler
and easier workflow for accepting such content.

Janice raised the issue in LRC of having a digital deed of gift that would facilitate accepting materials that are offered to us from
other organizations. Collections decisions need to be made initially. Do we want merely to serve as a website for another organization?
Would we accept his material if it were offered in analog form? We need to have the AUL for Collections and subject specialists confirm
that the material is something we would normally be interested in.

The issue of process is difficult in RUL. RUL sometimes develops cyberinfrastructure before developing general process and we need to
change this.

In October Janice was heavily engaged in copyright education sessions and assistance for graduate students and for departments
including the New Brunswick Graduate School, Rutgers Language Institute, CTAAR, and COHLIT. There is major work ahead for training for
COHLIT. Individual queries continue to take time. Work on many individual projects also takes time and sometimes projects are in
competition.

Laura thinks we could at least make recommendations for revision of the digital prioritization forms to Cabinet. We need to figure
out what's inside and outside the scope of RUcore. We need to consider how to find a scalable system. Some projects are more time
consuming than others. We need a way to prioritize these. Should this be the responsibility of CSC or another committee?

Laura offered a list of recent meetings on the implementation, including meetings with the graduate student subgroup, the
implementation working group, individuals at COAPI, Harvard University Office of Scholarly Communication, Smith Library, New Brunswick
Libraries Faculty, RBHS faculty (with Zhang) and engineering faculty. The group hopes to roll out a time line for Day 1 of the
implementation soon.